5 ms·

> but most in the US (myself included) would say that the US Constitution doesn't grant anybody any rights. It codified inalienable rights that exist for all pe

> but most in the US (myself included) would say that the US Constitution doesn't grant anybody any rights. It codified inalienable rights that exist for all people merely by virtue of their existence As an American I find this a very surprising interpretation, and I doubt anybody in my close social circle would agree with it either.

logicchains 5y ago
It's literally what the constitution itself says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The vast majority of Americans are not Silicon Valley technocrats who reject any kind of deontological ethics.
- sjy 5y ago
  That’s the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution came 11 years later (and did not, even then, include the Bill of Rights).
  - benjohnson 5y ago
    As I understand it, the Bill of Rights was considered redundant by many people - and some thought that enumerating the rights line by line was dangerously limiting them.
    - FridayoLeary 5y ago
      Not sure where, but i heard once that the constitution was actually only intended to be a temporary document until a more reasonable draft could be hammered out. Even its authors didn't imagine it would still be relevant 200 years later.
      - sumtechguy 5y ago
        The first one was more temporary while they figured out what they had just did. (things like how do we pay the bills) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation That is why the one we are under is basically the 2nd revision of that.
- wfleming 5y ago
  As others have pointed out - that's not the constitution. From a philosophical perspective, though, I agree that Jefferson and others saw those rights as fundamental human truths. They were saying "people already have these rights, we promise the government won't infringe on them", not "the government grants people these privileges". (Of course, who qualified as "people" continued to be a matter of debate. And some of the "fundamental" rights later enumerated in the bill of rights, specifically the third, seem like pretty localized of-their-place-and-time concerns in retrospect.) I think what prompted my comment and some of the other replies to pc86 was that the beginning of this comment thread was discussing some fairly specific applied legal concepts (e.g. "parallel construction") from a practical perspective of applied law. So replying to that thread with a point about political philosophy from an entirely different country is a bit of an odd tangent. Re-reading the comment, I do think that's how it was intended, but I think the context made it easy to misinterpret it as suggesting that Americans believe everyone in the world should abide by our political philosophy. Which is certainly regrettably true of some Americans, but I hope it doesn't describe anywhere close to most of us.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    >From a philosophical perspective, though, I agree that Jefferson and others saw those rights as fundamental human truths. They were saying "people already have these rights, we promise the government won't infringe on them" In general, that's almost certainly true. But there was also genuine disagreement between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists over the power of the central government and the Bill of Rights was essentially an effort to craft a compromise that could be ratified. Madison whittled down a long list of suggested rights and liberties to 12 amendments. Some of which (as in the first amendment, right to a trial, etc.) are fairly fundamental. Others of which, perhaps most of all the third as you say, fairly clearly grew out of Revolutionary War concerns.
ekianjo 5y ago
Its not an interpretation at all. Its is litterally written by Jefferson in the preamble to the constitution > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. From your comment I wonder how many americans actually understand the history behind the constitution.
- brendoelfrendo 5y ago
  I'm really, really enjoying that two people (this comment and a sibling comment) both posted in support of this interpretation of the constitution, and then both of them posted the same snippet of the Declaration of Independence instead.
indymike 5y ago
The Declaration of Independence made the claim that certain rights were inalienable. The US Constitution was much less exciting and largely just laid out how the government would function. "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The Bill of Rights wasn't even part of the original constitution. The constitution was ratified in 1788, and the Bill of Rights was ratified in the form of amendments 1 through 10 in 1791.
- will4274 5y ago
  > The Bill of Rights wasn't even part of the original constitution I see this claim frequently, but I still judge it as "mostly false." Multiple states refused to ratify the constitution without the bill of rights. Without the bill of rights, the original constitution would have collapsed in less than ten years. The original constitution by itself was a piece of paper. The constitution together with the bill of rights are the foundation of our government.
  - indymike 5y ago
    Incorrect. The Bill of Rights was written after the US Constitution was ratified. The part about it collapsing is conjecture (quite a few scholars agree with thus position).
will4274 5y ago
It's disappointing to me that you and your social circle weren't educated in your own country's government and history. Can I ask which underfunded school district you attended? In most American schools, for "social studies", US history is grades 8 and 9, while US government is grade 10. What did you study instead at these grade levels?
boomboomsubban 5y ago
This is the reason that the Bill of Rights say "Congress shall make no law infringing on..." The creators of the Constitution were very clear that rights were not granted by the state, they were inherent to all people. There's still room for the Bill of Rights to only apply to Americans though, it is not clear whether they may make no law infringing on the rights of citizens or people.

logicchains 5y ago

It's literally what the constitution itself says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The vast majority of Americans are not Silicon Valley technocrats who reject any kind of deontological ethics.

sjy 5y ago
That’s the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution came 11 years later (and did not, even then, include the Bill of Rights).
- benjohnson 5y ago
  As I understand it, the Bill of Rights was considered redundant by many people - and some thought that enumerating the rights line by line was dangerously limiting them.
  - FridayoLeary 5y ago
    Not sure where, but i heard once that the constitution was actually only intended to be a temporary document until a more reasonable draft could be hammered out. Even its authors didn't imagine it would still be relevant 200 years later.
    - sumtechguy 5y ago
      The first one was more temporary while they figured out what they had just did. (things like how do we pay the bills) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation That is why the one we are under is basically the 2nd revision of that.
wfleming 5y ago
As others have pointed out - that's not the constitution. From a philosophical perspective, though, I agree that Jefferson and others saw those rights as fundamental human truths. They were saying "people already have these rights, we promise the government won't infringe on them", not "the government grants people these privileges". (Of course, who qualified as "people" continued to be a matter of debate. And some of the "fundamental" rights later enumerated in the bill of rights, specifically the third, seem like pretty localized of-their-place-and-time concerns in retrospect.) I think what prompted my comment and some of the other replies to pc86 was that the beginning of this comment thread was discussing some fairly specific applied legal concepts (e.g. "parallel construction") from a practical perspective of applied law. So replying to that thread with a point about political philosophy from an entirely different country is a bit of an odd tangent. Re-reading the comment, I do think that's how it was intended, but I think the context made it easy to misinterpret it as suggesting that Americans believe everyone in the world should abide by our political philosophy. Which is certainly regrettably true of some Americans, but I hope it doesn't describe anywhere close to most of us.
- ghaff 5y ago
  >From a philosophical perspective, though, I agree that Jefferson and others saw those rights as fundamental human truths. They were saying "people already have these rights, we promise the government won't infringe on them" In general, that's almost certainly true. But there was also genuine disagreement between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists over the power of the central government and the Bill of Rights was essentially an effort to craft a compromise that could be ratified. Madison whittled down a long list of suggested rights and liberties to 12 amendments. Some of which (as in the first amendment, right to a trial, etc.) are fairly fundamental. Others of which, perhaps most of all the third as you say, fairly clearly grew out of Revolutionary War concerns.

ekianjo 5y ago

Its not an interpretation at all. Its is litterally written by Jefferson in the preamble to the constitution > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. From your comment I wonder how many americans actually understand the history behind the constitution.

brendoelfrendo 5y ago
I'm really, really enjoying that two people (this comment and a sibling comment) both posted in support of this interpretation of the constitution, and then both of them posted the same snippet of the Declaration of Independence instead.

indymike 5y ago

The Declaration of Independence made the claim that certain rights were inalienable. The US Constitution was much less exciting and largely just laid out how the government would function. "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The Bill of Rights wasn't even part of the original constitution. The constitution was ratified in 1788, and the Bill of Rights was ratified in the form of amendments 1 through 10 in 1791.

will4274 5y ago
> The Bill of Rights wasn't even part of the original constitution I see this claim frequently, but I still judge it as "mostly false." Multiple states refused to ratify the constitution without the bill of rights. Without the bill of rights, the original constitution would have collapsed in less than ten years. The original constitution by itself was a piece of paper. The constitution together with the bill of rights are the foundation of our government.
- indymike 5y ago
  Incorrect. The Bill of Rights was written after the US Constitution was ratified. The part about it collapsing is conjecture (quite a few scholars agree with thus position).

will4274 5y ago

It's disappointing to me that you and your social circle weren't educated in your own country's government and history. Can I ask which underfunded school district you attended? In most American schools, for "social studies", US history is grades 8 and 9, while US government is grade 10. What did you study instead at these grade levels?

boomboomsubban 5y ago

This is the reason that the Bill of Rights say "Congress shall make no law infringing on..." The creators of the Constitution were very clear that rights were not granted by the state, they were inherent to all people. There's still room for the Bill of Rights to only apply to Americans though, it is not clear whether they may make no law infringing on the rights of citizens or people.